This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

The #1 reason that is going to sink him is his OWN admission he "did it to send a message". In other words, he didn't do it to protect his life, he didn't do it to protect his property, he did it out of malice. Had he just kept his mouth shut and not mention that, he probably would have been ok.

i doubt they will give life to an 80 year old man. he is going to die in a few years anyway.
he did send a message to other people that would try to rob him. they will get shot as well.

Yeah I added a "edited" comment to include that when I saw it, my apologies.

To be fair, if you want to be critical of me, be critical of me, as I defended the killing based on the limited information I have at this time. It seems you think this is somehow hypocritical. I will elaborate then.

I do support the right to life. I also support the right to property. I support using force in self-defense if someone initiates force against you. Breaking into your house, trying to steal your safe, and attacking you... all of these are unwarranted aggression. They were in the wrong. I am going to be prone to stand with the person who had a right to be there against the criminals with no respect for his human rights. I don't think he has an absolute carte blanche to do ANYTHING, but shooting someone who has broken into your home, in general terms, is morally permissible and usually entirely appropriate.

Based on what we know, this couple broke into this elderly man's home and attacked him. He was justified in the use of lethal force as soon as we determined they were home invaders. Hell, you would justified to use force against them at the point of attempting home invasion.

"send a message" doesn't always have to be to the person he shot. The message was probably for others who would think of robbing him. It's less malice, more prevention and not appearing to be an easy target.

Point being it is not legal to "send a message" by shooting someone period. He let his intentions be know it wasn't to protect property and it wasn't to protect his life.

To be fair, if you want to be critical of me, be critical of me, as I defended the killing based on the limited information I have at this time. It seems you think this is somehow hypocritical. I will elaborate then.

I do support the right to life. I also support the right to property. I support using force in self-defense if someone initiates force against you. Breaking into your house, trying to steal your safe, and attacking you... all of these are unwarranted aggression. They were in the wrong. I am going to be prone to stand with the person who had a right to be there against the criminals with no respect for his human rights. I don't think he has an absolute carte blanche to do ANYTHING, but shooting someone who has broken into your home, in general terms, is morally permissible and usually entirely appropriate.

Based on what we know, this couple broke into this elderly man's home and attacked him. He was justified in the use of lethal force as soon as we determined they were home invaders. Hell, you would justified to use force against them at the point of attempting home invasion.

Up to a point you are right. However when he openly admits he did the shooting to "send a message", all that goes out the window. Two wrongs don't make a right and the guy was in the wrong on this one by his OWN admission he didn't do it to protect life or property.

Up to a point you are right. However when he openly admits he did the shooting to "send a message", all that goes out the window. Two wrongs don't make a right and the guy was in the wrong on this one by his OWN admission he didn't do it to protect life or property.

I'd go a lot further than that. When you shoot someone in the back who is running away from you, there is no way that should be a legal shooting. He's going to jail. If not? Then our laws are cockeyed.

I'd go a lot further than that. When you shoot someone in the back who is running away from you, there is no way that should be a legal shooting. He's going to jail. If not? Then our laws are cockeyed.

I can see reasons for shooting someone in the back. For instance, if they had stolen something valuable and would not stop, that is one thing. To shoot someone who has stopped and is begging for their life as well as the life of their unborn child is a heinous crime that demands justification. Also, this fool admitted as much and said he shot her anyway.

This old fool needs to be charged with murder, and he should spend the rest of his sorry years locked up!

While most could agree that this is tragic, it does seem that the mother can share in the responsibility for a child's death due to placing that child in such a high risk situation; had she not made the choice to rob and pummel an old man both mother and child would be still alive. This is not an excuse for what will likely be determined a bad shoot ( based upon published info ) but there is much blame to be shared by the mother and her compatriot.

Find a reason to smile today

Thom Paine

Originally Posted by JayDubya

It is morally permissible to defend your life, your liberty, and your property against aggression. A robber is an aggressor. If you have the means to stop them from harming you, there is nothing wrong with employing said means.

You can defend your property in my state. You should be allowed to wherever you live.

It is an awful shame that an innocent kid was killed, however.

Was the child part of the decision of the rob the place?

“No men are anywhere, and I’m allowed to go in, because I’m the owner of the pageant and therefore I’m inspecting it,” Trump said... “‘Is everyone OK’? You know, they’re standing there with no clothes. ‘Is everybody OK?’ And you see these incredible looking women, and so I sort of get away with things like that.”

I don't see how? He didn't know she was pregnant. She is a thief, she could have just as easily been lying about it.

Did you read the article? She did plead for mercy for her and her baby.

“No men are anywhere, and I’m allowed to go in, because I’m the owner of the pageant and therefore I’m inspecting it,” Trump said... “‘Is everyone OK’? You know, they’re standing there with no clothes. ‘Is everybody OK?’ And you see these incredible looking women, and so I sort of get away with things like that.”